An explanation of Sanctification and Defilement using the Parable of the Pie, and the implications on relationships, including sexual purity, and spirituality.

Readership: All

Thanksgiving is right around the corner, so this is an appropriate time to retell the Parable of the (Poon) Pie. So here it goes.

I once heard a pastor explain sanctification like this.

“There were two boys, Jim and John, who were fighting over a piece of pie because they both wanted to eat it. Then Jim got the smart idea to lick the pie, at which time the fight ended immediately. John reacted with a look of disgust, while a smile broke out on Jim’s face as he continued to eat the pie. Jim kept the treat for himself, while John walked away silently. John was angry about losing the pie, but after Jim had licked it, he had no desire whatsoever to eat that particular piece of pie. He had lost all interest in having it for himself.”

Now let’s explain this parable using the two words in question.

At the beginning of the fight, the pie was fresh, tasty, and steaming hot out of the oven. No boy had ever put his fork into it. But when Jim licked the pie, he sanctified it to himself. On the other hand, since Jim had licked the pie, John considered it as defiled. That one lick made the pie both sanctified (to Jim) and defiled (to John).

In spiritual symbolism, both of these parables could also be extended to describe our relationship to Christ. Sanctification is described by Jesus like this.

“He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” ~ John 7:38 (NKJV)

That’s what happens when a person gets “licked” by the Holy Spirit! And also, the closer we are to God, the less popular we will be in this world.

Likewise, the defilement context rings true as well. The closer we get to darkness, the less we are able to relate to God.

“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

In case the reader hasn’t yet picked up on the meaning of the parable, the appropriate word substitutions are listed in the table below, according to the sexual and spiritual interpretations.

Symbolic Logos

Sexual Analogy

Spiritual Analogy

pie

a young hot virgin

A human being

lick

sexual intercourse

A conversion experience

spittle

semen

The Holy Spirit / Unclean Spirit

[Eds. note: Reversing the sexes or the deifications of the archetypes within the parable doesn’t reflect reality (i.e. “two girls fighting over a lollipop”, meaning, “two women fighting over a man”, or “two men fighting over the Holy Spirit”, respectively). Because in this case, continued “licking” correlates with increased wanting, often on the part of both girls, men, etc.]

So far, I think we can catch on to the analogy. But here is where the analogy breaks down.

The pie has no emotions, no soul, no reproductive potential, and offers no possible relationship to Jim. But a living, breathing girl is much more complex than a pie. A girl, on the other hand, has a fresh passion, and is eager to be ravished.

In addition to this, the girl also has a soul, and a highly impressionable spiritual constitution. Jim opens up her body, causing her shuddering pain and tears. He spills her blood, and thereby institutes a covenantal soul tie which she will never forget, or be free from, for the rest of her life. After this experience, she is forever bound to Jim, and the cost of opportunity is that she can never bond with John in quite the same way.

The difference between sanctification and defilement is not only spiritual, but also visceral. After a few good hard romps with Jim, not only will John not want the girl, but the girl will not want John either. Instead, she will grow to want Jim more, and she might even grow to despise John.

But it’s hard not to like piping hot, homemade pumpkin pie!

Pumpkin pie is my favorite! Happy Holidays, from Sigma Frame!

Related

Advertisements

Reframe this post:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion.
Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame

DS, I have been mulling over this question for nearly a year. I certainly believe that virginal sex presents the best cofactor for a formal marriage. I also believe that sex, marriage, and child-rearing should all go together. Lately I have been thinking that people would probably be better off if they had the conviction that sex and marriage were (or should be) intrinsically concomitant. I also realize that if we conclude that sex equals marriage, then this would come down on 95+% of all marriages, including my own. But beyond that, it gets more complicated. It troubles me to think that if this is truly God’s intention for marriage, then humanity would be too far gone to accept it as truth. On the other hand, a stern interpretation of the OT law might turn out to be an occasion for God to display His Grace. I really don’t know what to believe at this point.

I have done some studies on this topic, but so far, I haven’t been satisfied enough to post them. Perhaps it is time to post what I have written, and see what comes out of the discussion.

I don’t think there is an adequate case to be made that sex = marriage.

Even in some of the “exceptions” (or rather equitable judgments) in Mosaic Law, the father had to consent for the daughter to be married off or there was a punishment such that the man could not divorce her ever.

Examples such as Isaac and Rebekah do not show what sex = marriage proponents think they do. The servant was still tasked by Abraham to find a wife for Isaac from His relatives which needed the consent of Rebekah’s father (and brother). It is an arranged marriage scenario than sex = marriage.

As far as I can tell, a minimal marriage requires some form of consent that it is indeed a marriage covenant (by vows or acknowledging it is a marriage) and sex. If by Adam and Eve you could also argue witnesses to affirm (Trinity) just like in many contracts now.

Ceremonies, public declarations, contracts with the government, and things like that are nice but not required.

Any type of covenants need 2 party consent. There is no covenant in the Bible that can be made just by a unilateral decision of one party and marriage is no exception.